From burqas to BMWs, and all brands in between

France's President Jacques Chirac is not letting up on his crusade against the wearing of distinctive religious symbols. He is now proposing to extend the ban on hijabs, burqas, yarmulkes, crosses and so on from the school room to every public service office.

Chirac says: "It is evident that no civil servant should display his religious beliefs while carrying out his job."

Pamela Bone, in The Age on Monday, says that she can live with the head scarf, and presumably even a cross, a yarmulke or a turban, but she draws the line at the burqa, the all-enclosing bag that some Muslim women affect. "The hijab is one thing," she writes, "the burqa is another."

It's a moot point. The two styles serve the same purpose and they belong together with religious habits, clerical collars, Sikhs' turbans, fish on the Volvo window, Order of Australia badges, masonic handshakes, yarmulkes, crosses, stars of David, Jewish women's wigs, sooty dots in the middle of the forehead, lots of 8s on the BMW numberplate and so on. They all serve the same purpose. They say: "Look at me! I am not like you. I am different. And, being different, I am better."

It is not surprising that, in Muslim countries where the scarf or the bag is obligatory, women rebel against wearing it. Where is the status advantage in conformity? But in a country where it is banned, such as Turkey, you can see why some women will cover themselves even when it is risky to do so.

Why does conspicuous non-conformity annoy us? The answer is multi-layered, and I may well miss a layer or two, but let's try.

First, deliberate non-conformity proclaims moral, ethnic and religious superiority. That is at odds with our assumptions of equality of imperfection.

Second, when women affect "modest" clothing it passes judgement on the morals of all other women. And we haven't gone through the turmoil of emancipation to watch passively while one lot of women surrender the gains of the majority.

Third, we must assume that those who proclaim their differences with conspicuous apparel will automatically favour their cohort in their dealings, whether in business, schools or the public service. We know from experience that Freemasons favoured Freemasons and Roman Catholics favoured Catholics in their dealings. We would be naive to think that Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and fishy people are any different. Undoubtedly this is behind Chirac's argument that all citizens should be able to deal with the civil service on the basis of equality. Sadly there is a flaw in his reasoning. The person behind the counter may be stripped of all identifying badges and apparel, but there is nothing to prevent the customers fronting up in their group clobber and getting preferential treatment.

Ultimately, the hijab and burqa are different from habits, fish and yarmulkes because we know that if ever the wearers achieved political power all women would be compelled to wear them. They are symbols of a religio-political world view intolerant of non-conformity. As such, they are entitled to only limited tolerance.

Perhaps another source of irritation is that for most of us there is no identifying uniform. We suffer from uniform envy. If we are inclined to think of ourselves first and foremost as human beings rather than as members of a superior ethnic or religious subgroup, then it is hard to imagine a badge or hat that would proclaim to the world where we stand.